...This is the tallest structure in the southern hemisphere The Sky Tower...

Yes it is - but it doesn't dominate the skyline like the JG Stridom Tower found in Hillbrow, Johannesburg since it is perched on top of a ridge.The Sky Tower also has a much more pleasing line than the JG Stridom Tower.

Quote from: mitchino on Today at 04:29:41 AMI was just about to post that these days, for a job like that I would use cgi.

Why? Takes longer, costs more. And if you want to do a few spritzed versions it's 5 minutes.

Actually It's often cheaper. Once supplied the artwork for the can, that kind of render would take about 30 mins initial set-up, and 30 mins post. The computer would do the main part of the work, the render, while I do something more interesting. If the client likes the shot, I often sell in several more angles and detail shots, that require 2 mins set up each and a bit of post. Should the artwork for the can change, or in the future the client wants new flavours shot in the same style, then it's a few minutes set-up etc etc. It can be lucrative. You're right about spritzing though, can be done in cgi, but adds a lot of work. I used to shoot all my packaging work, now at least 50% is cgi. It's a bugger of a learning curve, and I constantly feel I don't know enough, but photography's the same for me and if you aren't trying to learn every day, what's the point?

Here's one from November. Client is the interior designer, and (obviously) she's a pretty strong personality. We butted heads over the placement of the green bowl, and the styling of the foreground, in general. Single exposure, I brought light in from out in front camera right, and there's actually a lot of lighting going on in the distant room.

I am always so very impressed with the work you people post! Always fantastic!

For myself, most of my work is ad and editorial in the world of bodybuilding and fitness. I do other misc edgy editorial, fashion and will be shooting on a couple of movies this year. So for me anyway, I often think I have the edge in subject matter

Mamiya 645AFDII on Portra 160. Bailey is standing on top of an abandoned concrete bunker that extends an entire floor underground. Out near Salton Sea.

I am always so very impressed with the work you people post! Always fantastic!

For myself, most of my work is ad and editorial in the world of bodybuilding and fitness. I do other misc edgy editorial, fashion and will be shooting on a couple of movies this year. So for me anyway, I often think I have the edge in subject matter

Mamiya 645AFDII on Portra 160. Bailey is standing on top of an abandoned concrete bunker that extends an entire floor underground. Out near Salton Sea.

Strange thing: I'd imagined you to be based in Florida, for some reason, and seeing the desert/mountains made me wonder what you had been working on. Then, on looking at your site again I saw that no, you are California dreamin' all the time! I often wish that I'd been brought up there...

Over the years, I can think of several UK shooters who have made it their home. I also wonder how that works. A relative of mine, a professional surveyor with his own firm, had thought about moving to Boston, and it seemed that everything was legally stacked against him being able to do that - from the number of people that he would have had to employ down to the capital he'd have had to import. Seems if you're broke it's okay, but if you are serious, then so the problems in your way.

Yes, I think Kodachrome 64 Pro was something quite else. Barry Lategan and others used to make use of Kodachrome 25 for various calendars, and I'm sure it gave even less granularity, which was important when making large printed images. However, I did test the stuff out and discovered that you had to make a lot of use of flash or reflectors to hold anything at all in the shadows, and as I worked mostly outdoors, the almost constant beach breeze made large reflective areas pretty hopeless without lots of strong arms to hold them in place. As I wasn't much of a 'photo-team' sort of guy, that wasn't really an option for me. Also, working at the magic hour meant you needed all the ASA you could get!

Yes, I think Kodachrome 64 Pro was something quite else. Barry Lategan and others used to make use of Kodachrome 25 for various calendars, and I'm sure it gave even less granularity, which was important when making large printed images. However, I did test the stuff out and discovered that you had to make a lot of use of flash or reflectors to hold anything at all in the shadows, and as I worked mostly outdoors, the almost constant beach breeze made large reflective areas pretty hopeless without lots of strong arms to hold them in place. As I wasn't much of a 'photo-team' sort of guy, that wasn't really an option for me. Also, working at the magic hour meant you needed all the ASA you could get!

Ciao -

Rob C

For color work I moved from K-chrome 32 to K-chrome 64 in about 1974 and never looked back. I tried a roll or 2 of Ektachrome and some Fuji and Agfa, but never felt the colors looked "honest" in anything but Kodachrome.

Speaking of "honest," your calendar shots from those days look so much more honest than anything I see these days. Thanks again for sharing them.

Mine was meant to be very positive (but terse).For color work I moved from K-chrome 32 to K-chrome 64 in about 1974 and never looked back. I tried a roll or 2 of Ektachrome and some Fuji and Agfa, but never felt the colors looked "honest" in anything but Kodachrome.

Speaking of "honest," your calendar shots from those days look so much more honest than anything I see these days. Thanks again for sharing them.Eric

Thank you again, Eric; it might well be a product of the new system of working with all those added people on set or location. I suppose they all have to do something to prove they are not a waste of money, so WYS is no longer WYG. Yes, there is a big difference in how models are often made to now look, but personally, I think they stop looking human at their peril.

Itís something that comes to mind whenever I see those old Magnum Marilyn pictures, of her on the set of The Misfits: she looks real, and I believe that thatís why those movie stars of the time were movie stars: people could relate. Who on Earth can relate with the stills that now appear of the contemporary actresses on the covers of Vogue or elsewhere? They simply donít project any humanity and not even a vestige of character.

Itís a sort of circle: the older, very retouched styles were absolutely as unreal as the current ones; there seems to have been a period somewhere in the middle when stars were projected as accessible, even though there was no way that was true. But you could believe that they were.

March of the times, I guess; the struggle to appear inventive even when people are perfectly happy with what they already have. Donít mention cars!